Talk:James O'Keefe/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Is O'Keefe a conservative?

I don't really have a dog in this fight, but since there has been somewhat of an ongoing debate going on amongst editors of this article about whether or not the "conservative" descriptor ought to be used, I thought I should note something. Since this is a Biography of a Living Person, WP:BLP rules apply, and the documented claims of the person in question ought to matter for something. I saw an interview last night on NBC with O'Keefe directly answering the question, as put to him by the NBC interviewer:[1]

NBC interviewer: "Do you consider yourself a conservative?"

O’Keefe: "I consider myself a progressive radical. I don't really want to conserve anything."

Other editors can interpret that themselves. But for my money, the best we can say is that any such label is contested, or that BOTH claims have been made: various early media stories have identified O'Keefe as a "conservative" (citations go here) AND that "O'Keefe self-describes as a "progressive radical" who "doesn't want to conserve anything." That's my two cents. Others can mull on it and decide how we ought best represent the facts in a WP BLP article. N2e (talk) 01:35, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't know if there was a debate a few days ago, but since I began watching the page, there's only been one edit that removed the conservative label. The user said the WaPo article made no mention of the word "conservative", so I added a citation from an existing reference. You're correct in regards to the NBC interview. I saw it last night and noticed O'Keefe didn't label himself a conservative. It doesn't matter to me, but since most RS call him a conservative, how about we add the following phrase: O'Keefe considers himself a "progressive radical", while most media outlets label him a conservative. (or something like that) APK say that you love me 02:54, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good to me, as long as we cite both claims. But you might want to wait 24 hours before making a change to see if any other editors want to weigh in on the matter on the Talk page. N2e (talk) 03:13, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Sure thing. APK say that you love me 03:18, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree with APK. There are far too many reliable sources, including the mainstream press, that label him a conservative. He edited a conservative student newspaper. He spouts the conservative party line. He's a darling of the conservatives and anti-abortionists, especially on the right wing blogs. It's clear he's conservative. However, if he referred to himself as a progressive radical, that also belongs, but much less prominently to be in proportion per WP:NPOV and primarily per WP:UNDUE. BTW, did any one notice that he never really answered the question as put in the NBC interview. Rather he answered as if the term means, in its old sense, to conserve, or keep the same, instead of it's current political meaning. I forget which logical fallacy that is. Also, what the hell is a "progressive radical" anyway? — Becksguy (talk) 03:29, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Seems like a consensus may be developing. I think all three of those who commented would see both adjectival descriptions as article appropriate, but with more emphasis on the one that has been most widely used by multiple verifiable references. Anyone want to take a stab at a proposal? N2e (talk) 00:01, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

11/11/09 Hi all. It seems like the article ought to directly state that O'Keefe is a conservative.

It's wrong to say that "O'Keefe describes himself as a 'progressive radical' while most media outlets etc..." While there is a degree of truth to that statement (O'Keefe can be quoted as saying this very thing), the fact of the matter remains that O'Keefe started to refer to himself as a "progressive radical" only after the ACORN controversy got itself some legs. Furthermore, as far as I know, he described himself as such on only 2 occasions.

Centurion, the magazine which O'Keefe created and edited, is explicitly entitled a "journal of conservative thought". That aspect of O'Keefe's world view is open and self-evident through out his contributions to his self-proclaimed "conservative journal."

He only appears to have postured himself as a "progressive radical" with respect to his very brief interview on NBC, and with the WaPo. As far as I know, other than those two incidents he is quite explicitly and proudly conservative (read his online journal).

Furthermore, as someone who received at least $10,000 in funding from the avidly anti-multicultural Peter Thiel (an open conservative, openly interested in backing conservative causes), O'Keefe can hardly be thought of as either progressive or radical, despite his claim otherwise. Ceemow (talk) 03:06, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Media Coverage

As it stands, the present article reads: "That video, the first of a series, was published to BigGovernment.com, on September 10, 2009.[13][14] Video excerpts were frequently aired on the Fox News Channel, but largely ignored by other major media outlets." The previous statement is both extrapolative and inaccurate. It reiterates a popular talking point offered by conservative interest groups, but does not reflect the actual coverage of this topic by the "other major media outlets".

In the following link (posted 09-11-09), CNN's Abbie Boudreau reports on the matter, and later Candy Crowley and Wolf Blitzer weigh in: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KR5hHN9lsqg&feature=PlayList&p=A8DC40B0B1215A6B&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=2 The Youtube posting is dated 9-11-09, only one day after the videos were uploaded by Giles and O'Keefe, and only one day after they reported their findings on Fox News. Also, CNN reported on the story through its website: http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/09/10/acorn.prostitution/index.html

CBS & the AP also repoted on this story on the 11th: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/09/11/politics/main5303578.shtml?source=related_story&tag=related

In the days following, several news organizations reported on the story, and Lou Dobbs covered the topic thouroughly, despite the cancellation of a 9-14-09 interview by Hannah Giles, and despite O'Keefe's not responding to requests for commentary. It cannot be honestly stated, as a matter of fact, that the story was "largely ignored by other major media outlets." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ceemow (talk • contribs) 21:15, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

10-03-09 The point that O'Keefe's story was "largely ignored by other major media outlets," is entirely untrue. That point is countered by the CNN YouTube upload (see above), which displays a complete report on the matter as it stood on the 11th of Sept (although it lacks the exclusive interview with Giles that Fox News was able to broadcast.)

Perhaps in response to criticism that it hadn't followed through on this story, Turner.com listed all the CNN-transcripts that covered the ACORN scandal. This is a selection which covers the first week of the videos' release, from the day the story broke (9-10-09) through the 17th. A review of these shows us that the existing Wiki entry is wrong. To claim that the video scnadal was "largely ignored" is completely untrue, despite whatever politically charged complaints there may have been on BigGovernment.com or the like. Here's the link to the list of CNN transcripts: http://news.turner.com/article_display.cfm?article_id=4657# Each transcript can be viewed by searching through CNN's archive.

Additionally, Lou Dobbs had a very impassioned write-up about the ACORN video scandal on the very day which the story broke: http://www.loudobbs.com/blog?action=viewBlog&blogID=479265585913818511

The aforementioned CNN segment cited in the previous entry above (i.e., the YouTube link above) shows Boudrieau, Blitzer and Crowley all discussing the video after a lengthy explanation by Boudrieau. It also includes responses from ACORN staff. O'Keefe refused to meet with CNN (see below), so he's not in the coverage. This may not be the coverage that the filmamakers wanted, but it is still thorough coverage all the same.

By the way, I have come to understand that YouTube links arent completely valid as citations on Wiki. I included the YouTube link only to demonstrate that there was coverage and commentary on the subject the day after the story broke. If a transcript for that particular CNN broadcast is more acceptable than a YouTube upload, then we can use that instead. Here's the link: http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0909/11/sitroom.03.html

Not only had CNN reported on the videos as they were released, they also attempted (unsuccessfully) to reach Giles & O'Keefe for commentary. On 9-11-09, the day after he first broke the story, Jason O'Keefe posted a sharp and unapologetic statement outlining why he refused CNN's request for an interview. He claims that CNN, by including ACORNs response to the matter, was biased in favor of them (the aforementioned transcript from Boudrieau shows that the reporters remained non-committal, but hardly biased in favor of ACORN.) He flatly refuses to meet with CNN, despite their request for correspondence. He accuses them of wanting to do a "hit job" on him. Here's the link: http://biggovernment.com/2009/09/11/on-why-i-dont-return-phone-calls-from-an-intrepid-cnn-producer/#

All of this occurred the day after Giles and O'Keefe first broke the story on Fox News (with Giles making an exclusive appearance for Glenn Beck: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yGDd_iXMNYo&feature=related)

If CNN is not only reporting on the story, but is also getting into a tangle with its producer the day after the story broke, can it really be said that CNN "largely ignored" it? No. It only shows that CNN and other news sources weren't favored by Giles and O'Keefe the way that FoxNews was. O'Keefe made it clear that he wont have anything to do with CNN, Giles gave an exclusive to Fox the very day she released the videos, then their colleagues claim that CNN etc... are trying to "ignore them." The whole thing seems really self-serving and somewhat contrived.

I dont think that all of the above needs to be worked into the Wiki article, but i do think these are facts which strongly counter the party-line about any "lack of media coverage".

Certainly, these facts ask one to reconsider the existing Wiki entry on a media response which "largely ignored" the scandal. The closest thing that really could count for such a charge was the frank admission by ABC's Charles Gibson (on Sept 15th) of not being familiar with the story. However, even though Gibson was in the dark on this one, his colleague, ABC's Jake Tapper, already had a write-up on the story by Sep 11: http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2009/09/census-severs-relationship-with-acorn.html#

Again, the charge that the "main stream media" was avoiding coverage remains more strategically polemical than it could ever be factual.

Perhaps it might be better to simply state that "O'Keefe's videos recieved extensive coverage on Fox", and leave it at that. To elaborate on the circulation of the story might be too cumbersome for a Wiki article, especially considering the degree of contrived posturing involved in the release of the actual footage (see Breitbarts comments on why he chose a slow-release method to the videos: http://www.bermanpost.com/2009/09/breitbart-release-method-of-acorn.html#)

Furthermore, to speak of the media "largely ignoring" this story only reiterates a favored talking point echoed by conservative watch-dog groups, but doing so doesnt provide an honest recollection of the facts. Ceemow (talk) 06:11, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

NPOV/Article Bias?

Why are the sections on Planned Parenthood and ACORN labeled as "Controversies"? He exposed two darlings of the left that prey upon the people they claim to help. Did he not in fact produce audio and video of these events? What's controversial, other than the fact that some people want to pretend it never happened?

Also, why is this latest accusation of crime being updated by the hour, when Michael Mann's page has no reference to the CRU controversy months after his emails were exposed because "these were alleged emails" and higher protection is required when discussing a living person. (Isn't this entire phone incident an alleged act when he was allegedly in the office filming with a cellphone (as opposed to misrepresenting himself as a phone technician?, isn't O'Keefe a living person? I thought it was important to get the facts straight before adding to WP articles, because "WP is not a news service"? 173.168.129.57 (talk) 06:29, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I was the first to add the arrest information to the article, because I knew this was a popular wikipedia page and people would look here for relatively unbiased factual information and sources. The article currently reports that O'Keefe has been arrested and charged and is factual, and is sourced. If O'Keefe is later exonerated, that will surely be included in this article as well. Michelle Malkin has already thrown the guy under the bus, so I don't think the article is currently out of whack.--Milowent (talk) 14:07, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

If you don't like something here, fix it. The editor before me already addressed the verifiability of the arrest story. ChelydraMAT ^{This cursed Ograbme!} 15:39, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Is he really a journalist?

The article refers to O'Keefe as a journalist several times. I'm wonder with what credentials/authority/news outlet makes him a journalist, and what sources consider him a journalist. He clearly refers to himself as a journalist, but I wikipedia should be carefully in how the article represents him as a journalist.

It seems like he more of a blogger and activist. His activities do not represent journalism. Maybe the article could refer to him as a "self-styled journalist." PPHGF78 (talk) 21:11, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Let's get some sources and figure out what's accurate. If multiple sources refer to him as a journalist (though everyone knows that's total poppycock), it can be in there, I think. Articles like this are flash points--right leaning folks will decry bias one way and the left will say its the other way.--Milowent (talk) 22:00, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree, which is why I asked "what sources consider him a journalist"? PPHGF78 (talk) 22:15, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

According to this bio, he was the founder and Editor in chief of the Rutgers Centurion a student newspaper. Does that qualify, I don't know. Arzel (talk) 00:00, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I personally don't think being a high school and/or college writer makes one a journalist, especially if that person started the paper they wrote for. If there are no WP:RS that call him a journalist, I'm going to remove such claims. PPHGF78 (talk) 02:45, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I suggest you ask for additional opinions on what constitutes a journalist before removing information. He was editor-in-chief of the Centurian, i.e. he worked as a journalist. He claims his work now is that of a full time investigative journalist. Some of the references refer to him as an investigative journalist. Does that mean he is? I don't know. Does one have to work for a non-college paper to be considered a journalist? I don't know. I don't think that a high school paper and a college paper can be compared, but I don't know for sure. BigGovernment.com calls him a journalist on their Bio of him, and apparently his is doing work for them in this capacity. It would appear that he is a journalist based on his work with BigGovernment.com Arzel (talk) 04:47, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

• OK, I have looked more into the "journalist" claim. While there have been a some press references to O'Keefe as an investigative journalist, it appears to have arisen because he dubbed himself an investigative journalist last fall. Other pieces have stated that the term is self-described, and opinion pieces have taken potshots at the claim. Oftentimes he is a called a "filmmaker" to avoid the issue. e.g., google search for james o'keefe "investigative journalist" - 6760 hits; james o'keefe filmmaker - 87,200;
• My conclusion is that the lede of the article should refer to him as an activist filmmaker, and that the second paragraph can include the self-described journalist claim. I will make those edits now. I ask that any further changes to be discussed here before being made (and with sourcing to support your view), though we should continue to be vigilant for IP vandalism going both ways.
• Some refs: Main ny times bio[2] "Mr. O'Keefe is a filmmaker"; Christian Science Monitor[3]: "The conservative investigative journalist" (one of the few pure attributions as such); New York Magazine[4]: "self-described journalist"; Los Angeles Times (reprint of Washington Post)[5]: "James O'Keefe calls himself a progressive radical and an investigative journalist without formal training. "; Pittsburgh Tribune-Review (right leaning paper) piece by Michelle Malkin[6], "Conservative documentarian"; Washington Times (Sept 09)[7], "Conservative documentarian James O'Keefe"; Wall Street Journal (Jan 27 2010) [8]"conservative activist James O'Keefe"; Washington Times #2 (Sept 09)[9], "had already established a reputation as a highly competent and enterprising investigative journalist". I excluded blogs from these results for obvious reasons. I included the Washington Time and Pittsburgh Paper to be sure to include obvious right-leaning papers.--Milowent (talk) 14:27, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

The article is much improved. I'm okay with Milowent's edits and with calling him a "self-styled investigative journalist." PPHGF78 (talk) 20:04, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Here's this from John Hunt of the conservative North Carolina-based John Locke Foundation, blogging on the Web site of National Review: "Whatever you think of these kinds of publicity stunts, they do not constitute investigative journalism," writes Hunt. "The earlier ACORN videos weren't pieces of investigative journalism, either."[10] PPHGF78 (talk) 22:01, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

are controversy and partisanship destroying this article?

OK, I could have simply removed that silly "whom", but there seems to be a deeper problem. The introduction appears to be so steeped in raging controversies that it's becoming convolutedly difficult to read, if not in fact incoherent. Should/can this article be protected? Michael (talk) 08:12, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Let me explain the game that will be played right here on Wikipedia. The facts being reported in the media are damaging to a conservative hero. Therefore, conservatives want to keep them out of the Wikipedia article. The best way to do that is to create an appearance of a huge edit war and numerous instances of vandalism, and then have the article fully "protected" at the exact point in time when it has been edited to be maximally favorable to the conservative cause.

My view on James O'Keefe is that he has accomplished some interesting things in his life, and we should accurately summarize both sides. In the end, such an accurate summary won't hurt the conservative side at all. No protection is needed for this article, just a little honesty and good faith on the part of editors.66.148.122.109 (talk) 12:53, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you totally, anonymous user. In all honesty, i dont trust O'Keefe and his crew at all, but I understand the need for these articles to accomodate his perspective, as well as that of his colleagues and supporters. The thing is, they are so "devoted" to him, they simply will not tolerate the idea of providing balanced and reasonable criticism from the other side. I almost blew my fingers out on the Discussion page of the "Hannah Giles" wiki-entry, just trying to convince some folks that, indeed, there IS valid criticism of her from VERY reasonable sources, and it deserves a place in her entry. Yes, these articles on BigGov staff really need a good working over, just to be balanced and comprehensive.Ceemow (talk) 07:25, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Gag Order and Tweet.

It seems a newer editor, interested in protecting Mr. O'Keefe's reputation, has taken to removing anything they find less than heroic, and leaving spurious vandalism warnings, I received one for putting up unsourced vandalism, for example. I recommend careful watching of the page and review of edits to avoid future similar "mistakes". ThuranX (talk) 13:13, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes it sure seems that way, but I will call it dishonesty and bad faith because there is no way a sourced statement from a reliable newspaper can be mistakenly called "vandalism".66.148.122.109 (talk) 16:17, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure that merely putting some words in a ref tag without a link isn't considered a reliable source. Go grind your axe somewhere else. ChelydraMAT ^{This cursed Ograbme!} 16:51, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

O'Keefe is claiming that at least MSNBC reported there was a gag order, but that it was false. So that the info creeped into the wiki article is typical. I agree there is no RS confirming it, so it does not belong. Discussion of the gag order question: see [11]--Milowent (talk) 17:15, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

The only source I could find about a claimed "gag order" was from a blog on Huffington Post, which indeed seems to be incorrect/not a RS. On the other hand, we need to be careful when using O'Keefe's posts as RS. Someone who breaks laws probably also bends the truth. PPHGF78 (talk) 20:06, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

To be sure, O'Keefe News is not a reliable source, I was just noting his comment for talk page discussion of how it got in the article here.--Milowent (talk) 20:29, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I provided a RS for the material, RawStory, who cited MSNBC. There's no reliable source to counter the available RS, so the information should stay in until we have a reliable source to discredit it. Given O'Keefe also believes he's entirely innocent and, in fact, the victim here, he's hardly a RS for any information on his own circumstances. And Patterico is a right wing blog, hardly reliable material for a cause he finds sympathetic.ThuranX (talk) 12:28, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

There's no gag order. Period. We've seen the original source--the conditions of release. I think OKeefe is an ass, but there's no reason to lie in the article. And of course Patterico is right wing, but the original gag order claim has not been substantiated.--Milowent (talk) 15:20, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

BTW, I should add that i scoured democratic underground yesterday too, and there were threads looking into it, and they couldn't substantiate it either.--Milowent (talk) 16:33, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I brought citation, you've brought 'trust me'. Provide links to the 'conditions of release', and to all other paperwork in which said gag order would be noted. ThuranX (talk) 17:31, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Here you go:[12]. This is where it would be noted in the federal system.--Milowent (talk) 18:04, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

See? Not so hard to match citations. I'm ok with removing that information now. ThuranX (talk) 07:08, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Wiretap

The Affidativ does not make an accusation of Wiretap at this time. We must be careful not to make a claim of a crime which is not in the actual affidavtiv. Arzel (talk) 03:49, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

• FYI, that came from the Times-Picuayne reporting, which stated in its first report, "The FBI, alleging a plot to wiretap Democratic Sen. Mary Landrieu's office in downtown New Orleans, arrested four people Monday, including James O'Keefe."--Milowent (talk) 04:39, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
  • I guess they're a "Reliable Source" then, except neither the affidavit nor the press release from the FBI (neworleans.fbi.gov/dojpressrel/pressrel10/no012610.htm) say anything about "wiretap" or "bug" or related terms. They only use "interfere". So, who should we believe: one of WP's "Reliable Sources", or the source for the claims? ZXY4931 (talk) 07:23, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
    • If the follow-up reports refuse to use the word "wiretap" we should take the word out. Not that there's any real question, but better to avoid controversy, as the basic facts are the same regardless of whether that word is used.--Milowent (talk) 14:02, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
      • Secondary reliable sources (like reputable mainstream media) are preferred over primary sources. "Wiretap" has been used by some media ("Man who exposed ACORN accused of seeking to wiretap Landrieu’s phones" - MSNBC), but "tamper" and "interfere" are the more prevalent terms. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:15, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

The Government did not charge him with wiretapping. 18 USC 1036 speaks to the issue of entry into a federal building under false pretenses while 18 USC 1362 speaks to the issue of interfering with a government telephone system. --AzureCitizen (talk) 22:42, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

The "heavily edited videos" template

This line has been pushed by ACORN's defenders since this story broke. But until a reliable source can verify this occurred don't include that canard in the article. Anybody who's curious can see for themselves here, and no the summary at the start of each video doesn't count (i.e. watch the whole thing). ChelydraMAT ^{This cursed Ograbme!} 23:34, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

O'Keefe hasn't/won't release unedited tapes.[13][14][15][16] Many sources have reported on the misleading editing/out of context:[17][18][19][20] For example, the filmmakers released a transcript of their discussion with Kaelke that included a comment left out of the tape in which Kaelke said that ACORN would have nothing to do with their prostitution business.[21] PPHGF78 (talk) 03:17, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to know what are Chelydramat's sources that its just ACORN "defenders" who say the tapes are edited. Just for good measure, Greta Van Susteren (a critic of ACORN) said O'Keefe's tape looks "doctored," doesn't think O'Keefe "got the goods to say that ACORN lied."[22] PPHGF78 (talk) 22:40, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

PPHGF78's links convince me that the use of the prhase 'heavily edited' is supported by enough RS, including Van Susteren's remark, which disproves the liberal-only argument, that the phrase should be included. ThuranX (talk) 22:43, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

ACORN videos are edited and misleading

Why has Chelydramat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) removed information three times on two different pages ([23][24]) It is very relevant when discussing the videos to mention 1) they are edited, 2) they have never been released in an unedited form, and 3) O'Keefe (currently an alleged felon) has been accused of misleadingly editing the videos. This information needs included, that is if the self-appointed guardian of this article will allow (Chelydramat has been repeatedly removing people's additions) such facts in the article:

Only a few news outlets have noted that O'Keefe did not wear the outlandish pimp outfit into every ACORN office; in some cases, he spliced footage of himself into the finished product to make it look that way. And of course, neither O'Keefe nor his boss, conservative media entrepreneur Andrew Breitbart of BigGovernment.com, has ever released the full, unedited videos.[25]

There is no mention of this fact in either articles about this subject. PPHGF78 (talk) 00:36, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Just because you want something to be true does not make it true. That opinion piece you cited is only reliable as far as stating that writer's opinion, nothing more. Errol Lewis merely made that blanket statement without citing any source besides his say-so. Think about it, if any reliable source substantiating those claims actually existed, it would have been already included and stood up to any scrutiny. ChelydraMAT ^{This cursed Ograbme!} 01:24, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

BTW, the inclusion of controversial material is to be discussed on the talk pages before being included in the article. ChelydraMAT ^{This cursed Ograbme!} 01:32, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Finally, you should learn how to count before making accusations. I've made TWO reversions for each article. For James O'Keefe [26][27]. ACORN [28][29]. ChelydraMAT ^{This cursed Ograbme!} 01:54, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Chelydramat, my counting ability is fairly good. Your edits from just the O'Keefe article:[30][31][32][33][34][35]. That's more than two, right? PPHGF78 (talk) 03:11, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, though you're probably aware that 3RR doesn't apply to WP:BLP. Just saying. ChelydraMAT ^{This cursed Ograbme!} 05:02, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Back to the issues:

O'Keefe hasn't/won't release unedited tapes.[36][37][38][39]

Misleading editing/out of context:[40][41][42][43]

If you're interested in an opinion piece that lays out how the videos are misleading and has references: [44] And more here [45].

Thus, discussion of his editing and refusal to release the raw tapes, warrants inclusion in any article that claims to be WP:NPOV. Please stop wholesale reverting people's changes. PPHGF78 (talk) 03:11, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Is there a RS that has said the videos are "heavily edited"?--Milowent (talk) 03:53, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I simply added the word "edited" to the article, which Chelydramat removed. I did not use the phrase "heavily edited," Chelydramat did above.

But according to Acorn referring to a tape, "It is so heavily edited that it may be constructed to conceal the reality of the interaction."[46] According to Washington Post: "... the heavily edited footage includes audio of the two conservatives but none of the ACORN Housing Corp. worker's responses..."[47] According to a Fox News affiliate, "played a heavily-edited video on Wednesday depicting their visit to ACORN's Philadelphia office".[48] According to New York Daily News, "rushed one-minute excerpts of O'Keefe and Giles' heavily edited videos onto national television without"[49] PPHGF78 (talk) 04:04, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

So all you've got is a glorified ACORN press release (LA Times) and some twisting of the words about the Philly tape (due to pending lawsuit)? BTW the Twin Cities link isn't available. I swear this demand for O'Keefe's tapes is as ridiculous as the one for Obama's birth certificate. ChelydraMAT ^{This cursed Ograbme!} 05:02, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Please read the links before replying. Let's look at two tapes and two sources provided. O'Keefe removed the ALL the responses from ACORN workers in one video.[50] In another, where he actually had ACORN workers' responses, he edited out one worker saying "ACORN would have nothing to do with their prostitution business."[51] I can careless about O'Keefe making tapes available, he's a proven deceiver and soon-to-be convicted felon. My interest is that YOU stop removing sources simply because you don't like ACORN. O'Keefe edited the tapes and removed relevant information, according to a variety of WP:RS. It needs included in the article. (Let's also keep in mind the only one on trial for breaking the law is O'Keefe.) PPHGF78 (talk) 06:08, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

My interest is that you don't get away with violating WP:BLP just because you don't like O'Keefe. You gloss over the fact that the Philly tape was not released in it's totality by O'Keefe because of the pending lawsuit [52]. And since you love to toss innuendo about if ACORN is so pure the why didn't they stand by those employees instead of firing them? ChelydraMAT ^{This cursed Ograbme!} 06:41, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Cheldydramat: KC Russel (Philly ACORN) did not file her case against O'Keefe until 01/21/10. She did NOT file last fall when James relesed the Philly tape. The only court case that had been filed (at that time) was by Baltimore ACORN, and it did not involve ANY Philly staff. In fact, in contrast to the BigGov claim, it has been repeatedly stated in a number of RS that "ACORN has asked that the tapes be released unedited"; this is stated explicitly in every AP release on the Philly video... this is also a matter of public record.

Wiretapping is as illegal in CA as in PA, so if james could release the audio for his work in LA, while a wire-tapping case was pending NOT in PA, but in MD, then there is no reason why he could not offer the audio for KC Russel when he released the Philly video at the NPC last year (except for hiding something.) The idea that "his hands were tied" is a lie,and one happily circulated among many by Breitbart. We dont have to present that here as such, but the facts do stand as they are. We can say that james's offers the court-case as his reason for not presenting KCRs audio, but like the AP, we'd have to add that ACORN has requested a full release of the unedited videos. Furthermore, we cannot present O'Keefe's excuse as a material fact (especially since the LA releases dispute his claim about not being able to produce audio), we'd have to offer it explicitly as HIS opinion or perspective.Ceemow (talk) 20:28, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I was a bit careless. Here's the actual transcript you're alluding to. It kind of says the opposite of what you're saying. ChelydraMAT ^{This cursed Ograbme!} 07:09, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) controversies such as "if ACORN is so pure then why didn't they stand by those employees instead of firing them?" cannot be solved on this talk page or O'Keefe's page. There seem to be sufficient reliable sources that reference the videos as "heavily edited" that, at the least, the text could be revised to state something like "... videos (which a number of press outlets have described as "heavily edited" (cites))...."--Milowent (talk) 15:09, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

It would be far more appropriate to state "... videos (which ACORN have alleged to be "heavily edited" (cites)))...", especially since the only edited tape (Philadelphia) is not on the list of the five tapes already listed in the article. Note that portions of the Philadelphia tape was muted only because of developing legal issues. This article needs to stick with stating facts instead of misrepresenting them. ChelydraMAT ^{This cursed Ograbme!} 16:13, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

ALL THE VIDEOS ARE EDITED! He has not released ANY of the raw footage. Haven't you read the sources? Also look at the date of the Post article and the BigGovernment reasoning for blocking out ACORN audio. Note that the Post article came out BEFORE O'Keefe claimed there was legal reason for removing that audio and indeed, before the lawsuit was filed! PS in the Philadelphia case: "The Philadelphia staff said they did not give the two any advice and asked them to leave the office." PPHGF78 (talk) 16:32, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Stop speculating. ChelydraMAT ^{This cursed Ograbme!} 16:59, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Also, ACORN have routinely used that defense about "heavily edited" and claimed O'Keefe and Giles were unsuccessful in L.A. and New York before those tapes were released.[53] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chelydramat (talk • contribs) 17:22, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Um, your source doesn't make the claim that "ACORN...before those tapes were released." What your source says is "The video footage of the ACORN organizers -- which has been edited and goes to black in some areas..." and quotes a rep. saying ""This film crew tried to pull this sham at other offices and failed. ACORN wants to see the full video before commenting further." Then cites Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, Los Angeles, California and New York. If you have a source that says exactly what you are saying that ACORN was wrong about that statement then you haven't provided it. GlenGonning89 (talk) 18:39, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Please check the date of the story. It was published September 11, 2009. That predates the release of the New York tape by two days.[54] I should have added that to illustrate my point. The point being that ACORN isn't being straight forward either. No amount of hair-splitting can dismiss that as original research. ChelydraMAT ^{This cursed Ograbme!} 21:34, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, Chelydramat check the date. You said a lawsuit was the reason the unedited tape wasn't released. That story (you cited) mentions the editing ("goes black") and it is dated Sept. 11. However, the lawsuit didn't happen until September 23, 2009 (that is for MD the next lawsuit happened in Jan. 2010). I'm sorry, but you still haven't shown a WP:RS that "ACORN isn't being straight forward." In fact, Greta Van Susteren (a critic of ACORN) said O'Keefe's tape looks "doctored," doesn't think O'Keefe "got the goods to say that ACORN lied."[55] What you have done is given your opinion (WP:OR and WP:SYN), which will be excluded. You do,now, admit O'Keefe's hasn't been "straight forward." I guess that's a step forward for you. If you ever find a WP:RS about your ACORN claims feel free to post it, until then keep your personal opinions to yourself. PPHGF78 (talk) 22:23, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

ChelydraMAT, I'm not interested in O'Keefe's excuses or your acceptance of those excuses. I'm interested in adding what RS reported: the tapes are selectively edited and he hasn't released ANY raw tapes. Your strawmen arguments don't concern me nor does your opinion on a ACORN. PS BigGovernment.com isn't a WP:RS, and you can see why given O'Keefe's recent post on there.

Milowent, feel free to add it and give an example of that editing the press reported since ChelydraMAT claims I have an agenda (for the record I've never been part of a political party, organization, fundraising event, etc. My interest is in seeing all the facts get reported.) PPHGF78 (talk) 15:40, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Hey isn't that O'Keefe's only agenda as well?  :-) -- I'll do my best a bit later today, hopefully.--Milowent (talk) 16:15, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

For the record I'm not trying to have biggovernment.com included as a source in this article since it's not a secondary source. However they have certain things like the transcripts in question available. ChelydraMAT ^{This cursed Ograbme!} 16:27, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Given the filmer is being sued in two civil courts and has an upcoming issue in a federal court, I doubt the veracity of using the blog as a source for transcripts. PPHGF78 (talk) 16:34, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

BigGovernment is not "his." Drop the guilt-by-association routine; do us all a favor. MudskipperMarkII (talk) 02:51, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

MudskipperMarkII, no one said it was his. BigGovernment.com fails a WP:RS for the same reason other blogs fail. PPHGF78 (talk) 04:12, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

If I recall correctly, you said it was his. I see that's been corrected now. MudskipperMarkII (talk) 17:03, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

That's speculation. At least wait for a verdict. ChelydraMAT ^{This cursed Ograbme!} 17:28, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

You think the three ongoing legal cases is "speculation"? PPHGF78 (talk) 22:23, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

02/01/10 Hi all. Sorry Chelydramat, but you have to admit that, even when compared to the published transcripts, the videos are misleading. And yes, reliable sources have pointed that out. Consider the comment by WashPo's Carol Leonig (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2009/09/23/DI2009092302081.html) She explicitly states that the videos edit out exculpatory material. And that is very clear from the transcripts. Leoning also points out that the videos contain outrightly fallacious data (eg, the proposed funding ACORN was supposedly "on tap" for... a complete lie, verifiable as such.)

The heavily edited Philly video-release had even been described as unconvincing by Fox's Greta Van Susteren, an avowed and passionate anti-ACORN commentator: http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/200910210046

Additionally, Breitbart's own admitted video release style, and the stated intention of his "Politicized Art" (his own words from his WashTimes article) begins with the idea that these releases are intended for politically damaging effect. Breitbart himself admits that. He has stated a number of times that he has wanted to create the most damamging effect possible. That means he's not reliable, and he has yet to correct/update the libelous material that he continues to circulate on his Big sites (eg, he has provided no updates on Klaeke, JC Vera, or even his cruel assault on K Jennings.)

That being said, there is an absolute ABUNDANCE of material from reliable sources that cite many of the inconsistencies/contradictions not just in O'Keefe's narrative about the events proper, or even in the story that his videos APPEAR to tell, but even in his claims about "media bias" against him (eg, consider that CNN HAD reported on this story since it started, despite BigGov's claim otherwise... the links to the transcripts can be found in the references for Wiki's "ACORN Video Scandal" entry.)

Look, as much as I dont like BigGov, I'm not saying 'lets crucify James', or exclude his perspective & that of his supporters. But at the same time, we cannot exclude the VERY reasonable criticisms against him from this Wiki entry. They deserve as much a place here as his praises. Both ought to be properly and respectfully represented here. Since the ACORN videos summersaulted James into fame, any criticisms/contradictions associated with them are entirely material to this article.

If James did not want to be at the center of controversy (and he DOES have a history of doing just that), he wouldnt not have indulged in this kind of work. An article about him ought to showcase how controversial he has become, and why. If you simply tout the BigGov line that "the Media hates him, and that's why he's conmtroversial"... well, that might be your perspectivbe, but its not substantial enough to be considered a proper encylcopedic entry UNLESS it is explicitly presented as the OPINION of James, BigGov etc...

All the Wiki articles related to this matter suffer from BigGov supporters trying to use the entries as opportunities to present their own proposed narrative as if it were material fact. Thats a major problem as far as getting a reliable entry goes, because that narrative has an inherent bias. Ironically, even now, and as a result of James' FBI arrest, BigGov is advancing the idea of "suspending judgement until are the facts are in." Well, it would have been nice if they offered ACORN, Jennings etc... the same courtesy (a criticism made by quite a few RSs, and one suitable to this entry). This is especially true considering that Breitbart openly admits to tailoring the video releases for "the most damaging effect."

I'm not saying lets go the other way and lamb-baste James, but lets try to make this comprehensive, fair, and reliable to EVENTS/FACTS AS THEY'VE OCCURED. Ceemow (talk) 19:27, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Carol Leonig a "reliable source?" Hardly! Not ONLY was her article regarding O'Keefe's arrest (in which she clearly tried to accuse him of wiretapping and/or bugging Landrieu's phones) corrected by the WaPo - I provided a reference to the correction, by the way - she ALSO labeled O'Keefe as motivated by racism against blacks and Hispanics in his investigations of ACORN! Guess who had to correct her again? The Post. And MediaMatters being the "highly partisan" smear machine that it is, I wouldn't exactly give them a seal of approval either if you get my drift.

tl;dr, I trust Leonig AND MM slightly less farther than I can throw a lead piano. MudskipperMarkII (talk) 03:32, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Your personal opinions aren't helpful nor are blog links that fail as WP:RS. Also are you doubting the words MM quoted along with video of Greta Van Susteren? Also the Post article you linked to doesn't actually mention "race" or "racism" it did issue a correction("targeted the organization for..."), which is more than I can say for many partisan blogs. That's what makes it a WP:RS. PPHGF78 (talk) 04:12, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't think you know what the definition of a blog is. None of those links that I posted are to blogs, ESPECIALLY not the one from the New York Times. I am not putting together or helping to put together an entry on Media Matters, so let's not confuse things. The fact is, Media Matters is highly partisan and a group that is known - even by those that would normally agree with them - as a dealer in bias. MSNBC ripped them a new one for their actions in the Clinton/Obama feud. Media Matters fails as a reliable source simply because of its existence. If anything, I'm calling your reasoning into question and your own professed wish for down-the-line editing. If you consider a hack who even IMPLIES that her opponents are racist or "target organizations that allow blacks and Hispanics to vote" to be a "reliable source" I have to stop you right there.

I know what a blog is. Do you know what a blog is? Can you even spot a blog if you posted its URL? Because you provided links to the NewsBusters blog (part of Bozell's Media Research Center), Capital Research Center blog and Reason's blog. Notice how blog is even in the URL of each of those links you supplied. Now, explain to me why these links are clearly labeled as "blogs," but yet you deny they are. PPHGF78 (talk) 01:42, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Not much better to assume Leonig to be reliable simply because she works for an organization that corrected her. That'd be like taking (hypothetical) ABC News correspondent Alex Jones at his word that Obama is a lizard.

Let me guess, you also thought Peter Arnett was reliable circa Operation Tailwind? MudskipperMarkII (talk) 05:07, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

hello Mudskipper. First, if Media Matters is not an RS, then even less so is BigGovernment.com. Again, they have been caught in a number of lies, and while Carol Leonning and the WaPo admit to, update and correct the mistakes in their work, BigGov has not. Fox has also made a series of very serious reporting mistakes, if not outright lies (e.g. consider Sean Hannity's attempt to pass footage of a Promise Keeprs gathering from the '90's as a recent Tea Party convention, http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/sep/14/blog-posting/blogger-claim-photo-shows-millions-tea-party-prote/) So on the basis of your argument, one could not cite either Fox or BigGov here.

Not this again. That was a mistake made by some dumbass in Hannity's video room who switched out for the wrong one at a moment's notice. It was not "Sean Hannity's attempt" to do ANYTHING. After the mistake was discovered, he apologized on the air for his staff. That you even believe that it was intentional on the part of Hannity himself, and motivated by nefarious purposes, shows me exactly where you're coming from. MudskipperMarkII (talk) 16:54, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Also, Ms. Leoning, like everyone else, was basing her article off the Times Picayune report. THEY are the ones that used the term "wirtetapping." Her article can only be faulted for using the wrong word for the VERY SERIOUS crime that O'Keefe is actually charged with. That's a misnomer, not a lie. And when Breitbart or O'Keefe update and correct their lies about Klaeke, JC Vera, KC Russel, and even Mr. Kevin Jennings (who they leveled a number of cruel and false allegations at), then they would have room to fault Leonning for admiting to an editorial error, and correcting it.Ceemow (talk) 08:26, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Lies - according to YOU. Hoenig did not once correct the "mistakes" in her work. Whether you like it or not, there is a definite reason to suspect her intentions as they relate to him. This newspaper columnist that had to have been corrected twice with relation to the same guy for spouting false information clearly intended to attack him. Most of your rebuttal, quite clearly, is based on your own feelings and on articles with seriously partisan leanings. Don't try to claim objectivity or reliability when you make no pretenses to that effect. I'll be waiting for any of your attempts to back what you've said up. O'Keefe has not been charged with wiretapping by anyone, least of all the US Government. Don't like it? Too bad. You can't change the facts to suit your own view. MudskipperMarkII (talk) 16:54, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

At least you're assuming good faith here. The wording that User:Milowent proposed in good faith earlier, even though I did criticize it, is leagues better than what was inserted twice without prior discussion. ChelydraMAT ^{This cursed Ograbme!} 21:34, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

As Ceemow, pointed out conservatives (like Greta Van Susteren) have commented on the editing of the tapes. To include all points of view, the article should mention this. PPHGF78 (talk) 22:29, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

02/02/10 Hi all... just as an aside, did anyone see O'Keefe's interview with Hannity on Monday? Has anyone noticed that O'Keefe is claiming that if the government would only release his full video, he would be cleared of any suspicion over his apparently criminal activity? (http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/201002010047#715200) Now, isnt that just a skoosh bit ironic? What do you all think Katherine Conway Russel would have to say to that? Just a thought.Ceemow (talk) 09:36, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

What's that supposed to mean? Do I detect sarcasm and/or blatant hostility? Stop quoting Media Matters unceasingly, assimilate information from other sources, and maybe then I'll be inclined to consider what anyone has to say. MudskipperMarkII (talk) 16:54, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

02/02/10 From WaPo, Jan 28 '10, re- "ACORN Foe Tweeted About Planned Sting of Sen. Landrieu's Office" "On New Year's Eve, conservative activist James O'Keefe telegraphed across the Internet that he was up to something big. On the social networking site Twitter, he said that his past undercover video stings had exposed wrongdoing at Democratic-leaning organizations -- and he foreshadowed one more in the offing. '2008: Planned Parenthood VPs fired 2009: ACORN defunded 2010: Get ready cuz this is about to get heavy,' he wrote on his public Twitter page, dubbed "JamesOKeefeIII." (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/27/AR2010012702917.html?nav=emailpage) The article aslo talks about the reaction from a conservative group that cancelled O'Keefe's speaking appointment with them. That is relevant to our entry.Ceemow (talk) 18:06, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Ceemow and PPHGF that the ACORN tapes which have been aired and released by O'Keefe are 'heavily edited' per the numerous citations, all of which need to be included to show the proper amount of support the statement has. Chelydramat's combative attitude and editing are pushing into tenditious, and agenda-driven, not citation oriented, editing. ThuranX (talk) 22:49, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Proposed addition

Given the sources above, I propose adding:

A variety of journalists and pundits, from both the left and the right, have described the videos released by O'Keefe as "heavily edited"[56], appearing "doctored"[57], edited out material that made ACORN look good[58], the audio as missing[59], incomplete[60], out of context[61], and not proving what O'Keege and Giles alleged.[62] O'Keefe has not released the full tapes.[63]

Feel free to make suggestions to improve this. PPHGF78 (talk) 19:24, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I only have two points to make:

1. incomplete[64] seems more relevant to the earlier Planned Parenthood section. Note that there was a correction about the transcript (UCLA clinic instead of PP). It was in that section already, but an IP editor removed it.
2. out of context[65] I keep getting a dead link there.

Overall I can live with it. ChelydraMAT ^{This cursed Ograbme!} 20:03, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

• Looks pretty good. I would drop the mediamatters links/quotes because inevitably people will take them out.--Milowent (talk) 20:25, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose. My biggest concerned would be that these sources are only describing the Philly video. As is known, the duo were sued in Maryland for violating the two-party consent laws. I'm guessing they were trying to skirt that law in Philly, resulting in another lawsuit. Also, it would seem the sources were stacked to the criticism side, it lacks balance. Saying both "left and right" doesn't make it WP:NPOV. But, that really doesn't matter as we are talking about ALL of the videos, not just ONE. ThinkEnemies (talk) 21:11, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

No, as explained above the edits were BEFORE they were sued look at the dates of the sources. Secondly, as for the "left and the right" that section is a statement of fact, according to RS. If you want to add in a section talking about how great the videos are then I recommend starting a section on this talk about that and propose wording. As I hope you notice, the title of this section is about criticism of the edited tapes (and its explained why above). Here are reports on FIVE tapes, which show aren't talking about one tape:

• This CNN article is about the ACORN Balitmore video "which has been edited and goes to black in some areas"(article from September 10, 2009 -- O'Keefe was sued September 23, 2009.)
• This AP article is about the ACORN Philadelphia video: "O'Keefe went through an edited version of what he said" and "the voice of the ACORN employee was muted for legal reasons." Also says "ACORN has repeatedly asked that O'Keefe release all of the tapes he possesses unedited." (According to this: "The Philadelphia video is highly edited, trimmed to roughly 8 minutes from about 30 minutes of footage.") (Fox News calls this tape "heavily-edited video.")
• Scott Harshbarger, the former Massachusetts attorney general, issued a report: saying "the broadcast versions were edited and voiced over in ways that distorted the actual encounters between Giles and O'Keefe and the duped ACORN personnel." In the San Diego case the employee shown on the tapes speaks Spanish, not English. Harshbarger notes that "in the released video, his participation amounts mostly to nodding or saying 'OK.' It is difficult to determine what this employee is responding to because the videographers' statements are obscured by a voiceover inserted later."
• In this Media Matters article about the ACORN Los Angeles video: In making public a video he withheld for more than two months, right-wing activist James O'Keefe finally acknowledged that a Los Angeles ACORN employee "would not assist us obtain a house for our illegal activities."
• As for the ACORN San Bernardino tape: "Tresa Kaelke of ACORN’s San Bernardino office says on camera that she once was an escort and got away with killing her abusive husband." It turns out she just said that since she thought they were bad actors. O'Keefe, Beck and Hannity (without fact checking) highlighted that part saying ACORN hires murders.

More sources can be found if you want. PPHGF78 (talk) 23:07, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

PLEASE, don't continue to make major edits to your comments without timestamps. You have significantly altered your comment since signing it, and since my response. Also, try to keep them short and in chronological order. Thank you. ThinkEnemies (talk) 23:48, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I added more sources to refute your claims and no one had responded yet. Get over it. PPHGF78 (talk) 23:51, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Let's stay with the edit, please. I offered an opinion that the proposed edits are not WP:NPOV. I pointed out the sources speak to the Philly video, which is true. Edited is not an issue, and is inserted everywhere possible on this and all ACORN related articles where this event is mentioned. Fished terms like doctored, heavily edited, incomplete, misleading, etc., are, especially when applying the terms to ALL of the videos. I would also advise this is WP:BLP of O'Keefe and we should be mindful of weight issues. The articles ACORN and ACORN 2009 undercover videos controversy might be a better place for major and detailed edits. Scanning through, they seem to be pretty well written. The guy ACORN hired to conduct the investigation seems to have his place, too. ThinkEnemies (talk) 23:32, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

And I advise you we are talking about the BLP of ACORN staff too. As the above shows, the cut audio is a concern in more than one video. Not every video shows ACORN doing bad. More than one video is edited. More than one video has been reported as misleading. I'm not interested in playing semantics. Those words have been used to describe multiple videos.

If you want to play this semantic game then we will be altering the lede because its incorrect. The lede reads: "after releasing videos ... giving unethical and possibly illegal advice." That sentence will have to be removed because as the sources above show not every video purportedly does that. Are you okay with that? That's your objection right: Not every video fits the description of each word use so it has to be removed?

You are trying to have it both ways. You don't want to break down why each video is misleading because, rightly so, it would unbalance the article. But at the same time, you don't want a brief discussion of the videos being described negatively.

A simple fact: People have criticized the editing of the tapes and called them misleading. That WILL be included because it is backed by multiple sources. Your semantics will not undue that fact. PPHGF78 (talk) 23:43, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Realistically, this is a biography, not a coatrack. Detailed discussion of who said what about which tapes should probably go in the ACORN article, not here. For the purposes of the biography, it's probably enough to note that the tapes are controversial because of editing etc etc, and link to more detail elsewhere. MastCell ^Talk 01:10, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Category

I'm going to remove O'Keefe from the category of "American newspaper editors." People are not normally categorized by what they did in school. Maurreen (talk) 06:02, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I concur, its a good edit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by GlenGonning89 (talk • contribs) 20:28, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Too true, I support the removal.Ceemow (talk) 21:47, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Living with his parents

• Oh, no fact is too petty for edit wars is it? I see in the last few hours some back and forth over the reporting that O'Keefe will be living with his parents while he is out on bail. Yes, its noted in his release papers. He's still a young guy (25?) but there's much mirth generated by this apparently. Even if HuffPo describes his new spacious basement accomodations, let's not be silly.--Milowent (talk) 20:37, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

The change in residency is a condition of his bail, and as such, should be noted in the article. ThuranX (talk) 12:48, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Shall every condition be noted, verbatim? I'm just saying let's not make it sound petty.--Milowent (talk) 15:19, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

No, what you're saying is 'he's young, so what he didn't isn't that bad and we shouldn't report the facts here because they'll hurt his feelings'. That's not how Wikipedia works. His conditions of release, which in the section above, you put so much weight upon, you now dismiss. You can't have it both ways. ThuranX (talk) 17:32, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

No, you're putting words in his mouth. I didn't read any of that in this section, nor did I find any of that in coverage of this incident via reputable news outlets, or at least more reputable than the Huffington Post. Including it as a source is laughable, to say the least. If the AP doesn't consider it worth mentioning as part of his conditions of release, let's not even bother. MudskipperMarkII (talk) 18:53, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

BTW, I simply found the statement to be more along the lines of "he's young, so who cares where he lives?" Does everything about the life of someone you disagree with need to be poked fun at? MudskipperMarkII (talk) 19:03, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

If you think it's wrong to poke fun at people about their lives, what were your intentions when you made this edit on the gay village page when you changed Professor Knopps name to Knob and the town of Asbury to ASSbury? - Jim 70.92.168.37 (talk) 03:01, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Yesterday he had two bowel movement, and and used a a mint flavored wax floss tape instead of generic floss. Please note this is the utmost importance and must be reported. He also uses Charmin, and periodically squeezes it. . . . Oh please. Who cares where he lives other than the city and state, EXCEPT if you want to hound him? Oh look, we are not telling you go over there to harass him - we are just reporting relevant information. No, really, we are not saying you should go over to his parents house(wink wink), but this is very important news! People WANT to know, the people deserve to know! . . . 68.83.70.253 (talk) 01:34, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm hearing above a lot of 'I don't like it'. We have citations; in fact, we even have the court order itself, courtesy of Milowent. It was covered in some news articles, by Mudskipper's own admission, despite his smearing of politico and the AP, thus demonstrates notability. I see no valid arguments provided for omission, but do see cheap attacks on editors who disagree with 68.83, in his implication that anyone who wants to report facts about O'Keefe is going to go do something to him physically. Such baseless attacks are thoroughly out of place here; I recommend 68.83... get himself over to Conservapedia. ThuranX (talk) 07:15, 31 January 2010 (UTC) I'm hearing above a lot of 'I don't like it'. We have citations; in fact, we even have the court order itself, courtesy of Milowent. It was covered in some news articles, by Mudskipper's own admission, despite his smearing of politico and the AP, thus demonstrates notability. I see no valid arguments provided for omission, but do see cheap attacks on editors who disagree with 68.83, in his implication that anyone who wants to report facts about O'Keefe is going to go do something to him physically. Such baseless attacks are thoroughly out of place here; I recommend 68.83... get himself over to Conservapedia. ThuranX (talk) 07:15, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

That in your own bias you "see no valid arguments provided for omission" is enough of a reason to omit it right off the bat. Secondly, you obviously don't know the definition of the word "smear" since that was not in any way what I did to Politico or the AP. What with the readership of the Huffington Post, you never can tell if someone's going to drop by any pay O'Keefe a little "visit." Don't act like it's a baseless attack. If you want to defend them so badly, maybe you - since you seem perfectly fine with a group of extremists that are no strangers to calls for physical violence - should "get yourself over" to the Daily Kos. MudskipperMarkII (talk) 17:57, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

01/31/10 Hello ThuranX. I agree with you totally, just for the record.

I also would like to respond to Mudskipper's dismissal of HuffPo as a reliable source. We cannot reject a solid journal like HuffPo just because they may have made a mistake about this recent event. If that's the standard, then more than just HuffPo must be removed from these articles. All of the Wiki entries related to O'keefe, Giles, ACORN, etc... quote extensively from FoxNews and BigGov.com. Both sources have repeatedly been found making some pretty huge mistakes on several simple points of fact (eg, FoxNFriends infamous "120%" faux-pas.) If they are usable as reliable sources, then HuffPo is as well.

Give me a break. The "solid journal" you speak of is a blog full of demagoguery and ranting - one that is not above giving a certain terrorist by the name of William Ayers a platform to spew his hatred, while its creator claims a false objectivity. Not once have I seen them research a single thing before shooting off their mouths in a predetermined conclusion. Conversely, if Fox had ever - I repeat EVER - accepted Alex Jones' input on a subject they'd be laughed off the island, and rightfully so. Don't try to equivocate the two with me, and don't try to pull the old "FOX LIES" garbage either simply because you can't understand the existence of multiple choice polls. MudskipperMarkII (talk) 17:57, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

While I will not pretend to like James or his work (& I most certainly do not), I do sincerely believe that we need to be very respectful of his personal integrity and privacy (even though he refuses to extended that courtesy to others.) However, the conditions of his bail are pretty clear, and are public. I honestly dont think referencing that here on Wiki would inspire anyone to stalk him anymore than referencing it in Politico. But Milowent has a very good point. We shouldn't want to humiliate him here, even if he has made the public humiliation of others his life's work. We just need to develope on his story as a material case.

On that note, I do think the emphasis in these chapters should be on his background and work... who his influences and backers are, what he has actually done, how it has been recieved. We need to include praises AND criticisms. We also need to have a more balanced and organized categorization of these matters. i mean, if you read the article right now as a whole, you can almost see the syntax clumsily inflected by quarrels between those who hold James in high esteem and those of us who question his narrative. I honestly think the whole thing needs a good work-over... no, not one that simply accomodates my opinions, just one that is more comprehensive of all aspects of this story --and one that is orderly.Ceemow (talk) 08:12, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

• MY TWO CENTS:

I'm of the opinion that the only people upset with the factual (and well sourced) reporting of the terms of O'Keefe's release (to his parents home) are too biased to be allowed comment in a public encyclopedia. I am going to check this item every few days--and not let a bunch of kids delete facts that every major paper reported as true. (If I were to bet who is defacing this page and removing such minutiae...I'd say it was someone who suddenly has a lot of free time. Wink.) Big Orange (talk) 11:40, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

What I would bet on is that you are heading for a block if you continue to accuse other editors of conflict-of-interest issues without evidence, along with declaring that you are going to return to the page frequently to edit war. I am the polar opposite of O'Keefe politically, have been filled with nothing but mirth at his current predicament, but even I can see the "let's make jokes about having to go live in mom's basement" sentiment behind this; i.e. what we call point-making. Where he is spending his time while out on bail amount to, at best, tabloid-ish trivia. Tarc (talk) 14:01, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

This is an breaking story. For a while there was even a special section for this news as it broke. The bottom line--until the hearing--being ordered to stay with his parents is the most up to date part of this story. It is significant--not just because it may embarrass this individual--but, because it is true. It is also how we, as a people hold each other accountable. For instance, the Nancy Kerrigan family may find it an inconvenient truth that the cause of death of her father has been ruled a homicide. Now, if some fan, a proxy, or Kerrigan herself were to come on to Wiki and write, "natural causes," deleting well researched references to what has actually been reported...yeah, I'd hope someone would be vigilant to check it and correct it EVERY SINGLE TIME. Tarc, you seem very willing to let an interesting fact go to the wayside because it might hurt this kid's feelings. Where might that lead? Gee, John Yoo might not want to have any mention of torture in his Wiki bio. JFK might not have wanted people to know about his Addison's disease. Would you consider those issues too private, trivial, or embarrassing?

How about we just report relevant facts as reported in the mainstream press (with citations, of course)? (We can then call this an encyclopedia, rather than just another case of media deference to squeaky wheel neo-cons who don't have facts on their side.) Big Orange (talk) 16:22, 11 February 2010 (UTC) Big Orange (talk) 16:23, 11 February 2010 (UTC) Big Orange (talk) 16:29, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

There are many things that are factual that are simply not notable. His place of current residence has no point other than to try and embarass him. Now if he gets thrown in prison for this then that is a different story. Arzel (talk) 16:31, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, this is an encyclopedia; not a tabloid rag that needs to report every salacious detail of an event. Ask yourself; of what value is this to the reader? Why do you wish them to know what his living conditions are while out on bail? The intent of the addition appears to be one of ridicule, and that is not a very solid base on which to build editing decisions. Tarc (talk) 16:33, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Too trivial? Give me a break. The ENTIRE O'Keefe story/entry is trivial!

Here's why O'Keefe's living with his parents is important to the story:

O'Keefe's entire modus operandi is being somewhere under false pretenses. That is why his whereabouts- under official pretenses -is so important--and indeed, VITAL to the story. Every major U.S. Paper found it important enough to report. Wikipedia should too. Tarc, look up the entry for Neville Chamberlin. Stop trying to appease those who have no interest in the truth. (What are you going to agree to next? In Bernard Kerik's entry would you then omit mention of him serving home detention wearing a monitoring device? What about Martha Stewart? But any mention of O'Keefe is out? I'm scratching my head.)

This is quite amazing. I had high hopes for Wikipedia. But now, I see it's becoming scribble scrabble. A good half of the articles I've been interested in are defaced on a routine basis. (AND I GET CALLED OUT FOR THREATENING CORRECTION?)

The guidelines say to be bold and accurate with one's edits.

So, no. I'm not going to be meek with MY edits. And if Wiki blocks me...no sweat. The only reason I'll be blocked is if Wiki's guidelines are BS--and they favor bias over factual reporting. I have faith in Wikipedia. I'm going to do exactly as I said: every chance I get (to post verifiable stuff) to counter the defacers...I will. BTW--removing a cited post is just as much of a violation of TOS and will be reported. We'll see where the chips will land. Big Orange (talk) 17:50, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Your entire line of reasoning falls flat. Your notion of O'Keefe's M.O. tying into his whereabouts is convoluted and smacks of an approach that has little to do with journalistic integrity. Provide me sources that state "every major U.S. paper found it important enough to report," and you'd better make it good since neither the Washington Post, nor Time Magazine, nor the New York Post, nor the AP (which every major U.S. paper runs articles from) DID NOT find it important enough to report. James O'Keefe is not Bernie Madoff, nor is he Martha Stewart - who were both assigned to house arrest, the latter after a prison stay. They are both convicted criminals, the former serving over a hundred years in prison. And, as I pointed out to you, O'Keefe has not been convicted of anything.

Under Stewart's article and relevant sources related to her, she is listed as having served home detention. In this way, referencing O'Keefe as "living with his parents" implies that such is a valid criminal sentence. That is NOT correct. You can't tell me that it's not intended as an attack on him either, especially given the connotation of living with one's parents. Give me a break. All you're offering is rambling and a half-baked justification to edit war, which is stupid. MudskipperMarkII (talk) 17:45, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

• LOL at the drama, Big Orange. Personally I don't have a problem with the article mentioning that he is currently living with his parents as a condition of his release. My initial point in this subsection was that it shouldn't be treated as a joke, as the TPM and HuffPo articles did (which I fully enjoyed).--Milowent (talk) 17:58, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm offended at going to all the trouble to reference my posts --only to have an obviously biased joker just wipe it all out because they have an agenda other than the truth. The TPM and HuffPo articles, while referenced as sources, only supported the sentence of O'Keefe's being required to live at home. There were no jokes inserted or even alluded to. As I said, sarcastically, to Tarc (as I know we probably agree on politics) what was the Wiki policy on Madoff, Kerik's, and Martha Stewart's home incarceration? Was it to report it--or to not report it? (Now watch the same defacer delete all traces of those mentions!) Why is O'Keefe different? (Madoff was still awaiting trial during his home incarceration, so it's not like conviction was required before that became part of his Wiki bio.) Wiki should have one standard and stick to it. (My guess is that whomever is removing my Times' "parents" citation is going to be very busy tomorrow.) Big Orange (talk) 18:44, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh really? Looks like you're the "biased joker" here. MudskipperMarkII (talk) 17:45, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. It appears to me that one editor wants to remove mention of this at all costs. It should not be at the expense of accuracy. If you want to say that O'Keefe is under house arrest, find a source that says it. Until then we shouldn't be making unwarranted assumptions just because one editor objects to a particular fact being included. Gamaliel (talk) 18:35, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

So now objection to the negative connation that - like it or not - living with one's parents holds, qualifies me as a sockpuppet of one or all of the other editors to have a problem with this page? That's rich. The way I see it, no one can argue to include O'Keefe's bail condition by insisting that he be held equal to convicted criminals with entries on Wikipedia - who were ordered to serve home detention - and then treat him differently after the bail condition is included by refusing to acknowledge him as being under home detention. The rules and conditions of house arrest are clearly spelled out, and they match his current predicament. If you want to point and laugh and go "ZOMG HE'Z LIVING WIF HIS PARENTZ HYPOCRITE" do it somewhere else. Not here. MudskipperMarkII (talk) 18:47, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Object all you want, I don't care, but don't do it by putting unsourced information into a BLP. Gamaliel (talk) 18:52, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Since there's been no response from you, I'm going to restore the version that reflects what the article actually says. Do not restore anything that says he is under house arrest unless you have a source that says he is under house arrest. The fact that it seems like it may be enough for you, but it is not enough for a BLP. If you persist in adding unsourced information, it will be removed. Please adhere to the BLP policy and find a source to back up your claim if you want it in the article. Gamaliel (talk) 18:06, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Gamalie--we're talking about BOTH the vandalistic removal of sourced, widely reported material--and the repeated alteration of adjectives which changes a sentence from being accurate --to being the unwarranted hero worship of the subject. Same person manipulating BOTH posts? Who knows? But until I get a warning from an administrator to stop--I'm going to keep correcting the record. And if that happens--I plan to use my personal connections to write an Op-ed about this experience. I'm keeping notes. Big Orange (talk) 19:28, 12 February 2010 (UTC)Big Orange (talk) 19:43, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Please do not forget that WP is not a newspaper. Articles should be written from a historical perspective and not include specific recent events that will not be relevant in the near future. That he was arrested is something that will certainly be historical. Where he resided while waiting for his trial will not. Additionally, the only apparent reason for this inclusion is to ridicule O'Keefe, which is a clear violation of WP:BLP. Yes it was reported in the news, but to make specific mention of this minor aspect is clearly undue weight with regards to the overall aspect of him being arrested. Stick the primary aspects of the arrest and what the eventual consequences will be rather than on the minutia associated with the arrest that provide an unbalanced view of the incident. Arzel (talk) 23:34, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Special Agent Rayes' Own Statement

Please see affadavit to confirm the verbage on the arrest.(http://media.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/nation/pdf/FBI_affadavit_012610.pdf)

From the affadavit, Point 2: "On January 25,2010, individuals entered and attempted to gain entrance to the office and telephone system of United States Senator Mary Landrieu, located in the Hale Boggs Federal Building, Room 1005,500 Poydras Street, New Orleans, Louisiana 70130 for the purpose of interfering with the office's telephone system. The individuals did so by falsely and fraudulently representing that the were employees of a telephone company. Witnesses in and around the office identified the individuals as JOSEPH BASEL and ROBERT FLANAGAN. Subsequent investigation determined that JAMES O'KEEFE and STAN DAI aided and abetted FLANAGAN and BASEL in the execution of the plan."

I think the above is pretty clear and unambiguous. Also, the affadavit contains absolutely NO retraction of Rayes' allegations of "malicious interference" (again Muddy, the term is "allege", i.e., the agent's informed opinion which he can purportedly prove in court.) If it makes it less cloudy, maybe we should just insert the whole statement.

Again, Point 11: "Based on the above information, your Affiant believes there is probable cause to believe that FLANAGAN and BASEL by false and fraudulent pretense attempted to enter, and did in fact enter, real property belonging to the United States for the purpose of willfully and maliciously interfering with a telephone system operated and controlled by the United States of America. Your Affiant further believes that FLANAGAN and BASEL were aided and abetted by O'KEEFE and DAI to commit the entry for the purpose of interfering with the telephone system on January 25,2010; all in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1036, 1362 and 2."

And Mudskipper, please dont try to make Breitbart's semantic case over the differences between the words "tamper" and "interfere"; you know that in this context, they arent terribly far apart. If you want to go literal, then we can quote whole sections from the affadavit as it is. Ceemow (talk) 05:42, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Developing the new section on the New Orleans incident

01/30/10 Hello all, I have made a change to the section concerning O'keefe's recent public statement. As it had stood, the statement had offered O'keefe's perpective on what he says "the media continually circulated etc...". That line wasnt properly referenced and it was somewhat grammatically clumsy (this is an observation, not a mean-spirited judgement... the scentence was just not properly put together.) It also directly presented O'Keefe's opinion on the matter as if it were a basic material fact, using almost his exact words. As such, it was far too exaggerated to represent the actual events as they have occured. Thus, i have changed it to say: "He criticized media coverage of the arrest for improperly alleging that he had been held for wire-tapping." This is far a far more simple, direct and concise statement than what was posted previously.Ceemow (talk) 07:11, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

01/31/10 Hi again. There is a line in the new section that reads: "However, no wiretapping equipment was found or referenced in Rayes' affidavit[60] [61], and there was no intent to wiretap said telephone system[62]." This needs to be changed slightly. I can accept the first part about Rayes's affadavit not suggesting evidence of wiretapping. But to say anything about what the "intent" was or wasn't is not just speculative, it's not mentioned in any of the 3 articles cited. (these being: ^ http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2010/01/27/2187074.aspx ^ http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/documents/2010/01/affidavit-detailing-charges-against-james-okeefe-filmmaker-who-broke-acorn-story.php?page=1 ^ http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/26/AR2010012604145.html) O'Keefe, however, did say in his recent statement that he had no intention to bug. So if we are going to add that point, it must reference his own statement and be labeled as such. Thus I am going to re-edit that statement. I hope no one objects.Ceemow (talk) 08:34, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Perfectly fine with me. MudskipperMarkII (talk) 18:00, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Good idea to rework this area. I think it best not to place too much value on O'Keefe's explanation (at this point). It doesn't ring true.

Follow the logic of O'Keefe's narrative: What would the solution be for their supposed complaint? For Landrieu to hire more staff in order to handle the calls? To grow a BIGGER government? Now,ask yourself:Is that O'Keefe's hitherto expressed philosophy? To demand a bigger goverment? I don't think so...not for one second. It sounds more like a pre-arranged story to tell upon getting caught. There almost has to be something MORE to this. It doesn't add up. Big Orange (talk) 12:09, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Your logic is faulty, BigOrange. Taking the time to answer phones and listen to your constituents does not equate to sending trillions of dollars toward new government programs, nationalizing entire sections of the American economy, or creating cause for sea upon sea of additional red tape. That you would even claim as such is laughable. MudskipperMarkII (talk) 17:56, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Even though I was merely cautioning about running with the wire-tap story (while suggesting there had to be something more)==Is every claim you make demonstrably bogus--or are you just pulling everyone's chain for the hell of it? A mere addition of, say, 3 staffers per Congressperson and 5 per Senator would cost more than you give (me) credit for. (I think you're just mad because I figured something out--and that you have an inclination to pooh-pooh things that don't jibe with your personal agenda). Every family member of said additional staff would be on the government health plan--not to mention their individual salaries. That you would use the words, "additional trillions," in this respect --is what is truly laughable. Bureaucracy is people--not simply programs. There is no way that a person with O'Keefe's profile would want to increase government. He mocks big government to the point of actually working for a company named Big Government--tongue in cheek. So yeah, I bet there is a lot more to this story than has been reported. Hopefully we'll find out later today...as it's the 12th. Big Orange (talk) 21:25, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

And you wasted all those lines to in effect say . . . absolutely nothing. Come back next time. Thanks for playing. MudskipperMarkII (talk) 02:29, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Senator Landrieu's office (they answered MY call) had a different response to my suggestion. Time will tell who's playing and who's not. Big Orange (talk) 11:21, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

New Allegations (white supremacists)

There is some new information running around the left about associations that O'Keefe is alleged to have with white supremacists which I am sure are going to bring a lot of people to this article. I certainly don't approve nor defend these actions if they are true as stated. However, we need to be very careful about introduction of such material into this article, because if not true it could be extremely damaging to a living person and WP as well. Let's make sure we stick with only the highest reliable sources and steer clear of any biased sources for this information. Arzel (talk) 01:38, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

The Salon piece [66] is the main source for this right now, and its already been added and deleted at least once. The claims are fairly explosive (we all know Obama was a terrorist by association via Bill Ayers), so I'm hestitant to add anything on this unless corroborated, as the Salon piece relies on someone who would obviously hate O'Keefe's guts. More details discussed at bloggasm:[67] and weigel at washington independent:[68]. No mainstream sources yet.--Milowent (talk) 06:13, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia should follow, not lead the mainstream media in breaking or sensational stories. We are not "on deadline" and can afford to wait a bit rather than rushing to press with anything which bumps against WP:BLP. It is impossible to "unring a bell" if something poorly sourced appears in Wikipedia. Violations of that policy will be dealt with appropriately. As for "cropping removed the table, so we can't confirm whether he was distributing the racist literature," shame on the photographer who did not preserve his original images. Edison (talk) 06:31, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

If the Salon story does contain significant, demonstrable falsehoods and relied upon photoshopped evidence without investigation, the information regarding any partisan, journalistic malpractice should be added to the author's (Blumenthal) bio. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.29.40.2 (talk) 18:29, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Only if it rises to the level where other reliable sources make an issue of such a scenario were it come to pass, i.e. another Killian documents controversy. Wikipedia editors cannot be the creators or initiators of such stories, per policy on no original research. Tarc (talk) 19:04, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Salon.com is a reasonably decent source, although to be safe it should probably be used with inline attribution ("According to a piece on Salon.com by Blumenthal...") That said, a lot of the specifics seem a bit unclear, so it seems reasonable to wait and see how it shakes out before we rush to add anything to a biography. It would be wrong (if somewhat ironic, given the ACORN saga) to vilify someone based on a few craftily-edited, out-of-context visual images. MastCell ^Talk 20:00, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

It seems a bunch of blogs are reporting on this, and O'Keefe has admitted to attending. Author Larry O'Connor spoke with O'Keefe who said he did attend, "He attended the event with many of his Leadership Institute co-workers since it was right across the street from their building in Arlington, Va., and it was organized by other LI associates." This should be included in the article and mention who ran it, (Marcus Epstein). --user:GlenGonning89

A bunch of blogs probably aren't appropriate sourcing (see WP:BLP). Do you have a link to O'Keefe's own statement on the subject? MastCell ^Talk 20:58, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

• I wouldn't give much credit to O'Keefe's statement either, though his response would likely be included if this hullabaloo makes it into the article. While on the "left", David Weigel at the Washington Independent is someone to follow closely on this story to see if it gets bigger and moves mainstream, because he was at the conference/forum and has written about it (latest: [69]). While it seems confirmed that O'Keefe attended, there is a fair amount of fighting going on over his role and whether he actually manned the table with the "white supremicist" literature at it--which, if true, is probably the end for James O'Keefe. So we have to continue to watch.--Milowent (talk) 21:07, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh look here, something dug up from a hell of a long time ago in order to smear O'Keefe and by extension imply that conservatives are racists. Thank you, Wikipedia. MudskipperMarkII (talk) 17:03, 12 February 2010 (UTC) video Mudskipper, if it's true--it's not a smear. Big Orange (talk) 11:34, 19 February 2010 (UTC)